Hello Sedat,

analytical studies according to their modelling method for the infilled structure can be categorised to:

1. Finite element (micro) modelling of masonry infilled frames using continuum elements and RC parts as well. in such case you can use ANSYS, DAINA, or ABAQUS.

2.Strut (macro) modelling of masonry infill panels; where the RC can be modeled using fiber element, beam with hinge or lumped plasticity (Ibarra model) and the infill panel is replaced by a strut system (one or more strut). The point here, if you attend to use this type of modeling you can use several open-source or commercial software, but ANSYS is not the best for such modelling approach.

Best wishes 

When using macro-modeling, your aim is mainly to capture the global effects of infills (and under some circumstanses, some of the local effects to the surounding RC frame). In the other case (i.e by using micro-modelling) your aim is mostly to capture the local effects.

In the most practical cases, the use of macro-modelling (i.e the use of diagonal struts) is much more convenient. For this purpose, there are some software packages that treat such an approach quite well (one of them that dirrectly comes in to my mind is Seismostruct).      

Thank you very much for your answers. In my opinion, macro modelling is an applicable way for almost every structure but, appropriate homogenization approach have to be chosen.

A micro-model, giving a better understanding of the local behaviour of masonry structures. The reasons are that a micro-model is capable of reproducing the failure modes and cracking locations of the masonry. While, a macro-model cannot capture detailed local crack patterns and wall behaviour.

In terms of modeling there's no difference between a masonry panel and a concrete panel except for the material properties. But the failure pattern and softening behaviour is surely different.

Regards,

Imrose